|
Why side track this into an argument about history? At the moment I'm interested in what we have now vs what we might consider ideal.
And what we have now already gives creators access to their entire cultural heritage EXCEPT for a few odds and ends to do with copying and derivation. (Oh, and outside copyright, there may also be other laws impeding creators, depending on your jurisdiction: liable, hate speech etc..) If you want to argue about certain aspects of cultural heritage that are or are not accessible then that's one thing, but don't try to claim that your use cultural heritage as a whole is significantly impeded. So yes, the unqualified use of the phrase "cultural heritage" does indeed try to spin the argument by suggesting the current impositions of copyright are broader than they are.
|